Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Literary Terminology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdraw and no consensus, so keep, with a redirect or merge a possibility per below. — Deckill e r 11:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Terminology

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary -- Koffieyahoo 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a similar list exists in the form of Glossary of rhetorical terms, and taking into account Centrx comments on the possible merge, I would hereby like to withdraw my proposal for AfD. -- Koffieyahoo 05:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to literature. SM247^{My Talk} 09:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to literature per User:SM247 which describes several terms in prose. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Glossary of rhetorical terms, which does something rather similar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Glossary of rhetorical terms. --Coredesat talk 19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem is that Glossary of rhetorical terms contains terms specifically in rhetoric, that is used to persuade the listener or reader, which is not the same as in general literary terms like these, which are techniques used in books, etc. to evoke imagery and convey a story. There is some overlap, but these terms do not belong in a "Glossary of rhetorical terms". Literature has no proper place to insert this. Literary technique may be OK, but in that case there is not a lot of overlap, indicating it may not be the right place. Perhaps there needs to be split to different places, but I am not familiar enough with the layout of literature articles on Wikipedia to perhaps do the best job. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.